Skip to content


Nanjadik Rai Vs. Ram Jatan Rai and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923All558; 73Ind.Cas.584
AppellantNanjadik Rai
RespondentRam Jatan Rai and anr.
Cases ReferredKalyan Mal v. Samad
Excerpt:
agra tenancy act (11 of 1991), sections 34, 177(e) - question of proprietary title--appeal. - .....revenue court. the only plea which has been aruged is that no appeal lay to the court below, no question of proprietary title having been raised within the meaning of clause (e) of section 177 of the tenancy act. the plaintiff brought the suit under section 34 alleging that the defendant was occupying the land without his permission. the contesting defendant, ram jatan rai, pleaded that he was a mortgagee of the proprietary tight. the plaintiff's proprietary right was not in dispute. if the matter were one of , first impression there might, i think, be room for controversy whether the issue whether the defendant was a tenant or a mortgagee from the proprietor does really raise a question of proprietary right; but the question is concluded by the ruling in kalyan mal v. samad 18 ind......
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment in the Revenue Court. The only plea which has been aruged is that no appeal lay to the Court below, no question of proprietary title having been raised within the meaning of Clause (e) of Section 177 of the Tenancy Act. The plaintiff brought the suit under Section 34 alleging that the defendant was occupying the land without his permission. The contesting defendant, Ram Jatan Rai, pleaded that he was a mortgagee of the proprietary tight. The plaintiff's proprietary right was not in dispute. If the matter were one of , first impression there might, I think, be room for controversy whether the issue whether the defendant was a tenant or a mortgagee from the proprietor does really raise a question of proprietary right; but the question is concluded by the Ruling in Kalyan Mal v. Samad 18 Ind. Cas. 244 : 35 A. 157 : 11 A.L.J. 118 in which it has been held that a question of proprietary right is involved. Following that ruling, I reject the plea of the appellant and dismiss the appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //